• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Future President and Corp. Aviation

Tgaug6300

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
269
Total Time
Enough
I think it is safe to say that most of us in our profession are Republican (to prove that just walk into any Pilot Lounge and Fox News will be on). My question is this. Which candidate do you think will help our industry, and which candidate will be more apt to hurt it?

We all know that McCain was a pilot, and Cindy is a pilot. The family operates corporate aircraft. So you would think they would be pro-aviation. Yet Mccain wanted to initiate User Fees for those of us that use the IFR system (even though we already pay our share with fuel taxes).

Any thoughts?
 

supsup

waiting
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Posts
162
Total Time
5200
why do.........

republicans always assume everyone else is a repubican???????

I hate politics.
 

jet2work

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Posts
196
Niether one of them will be good for aviation.

McCain has sponsored alot of anti-aviation legislation including the National Parks Overflight Act, and the the Pilot Record Sharing Improvement Act which led to me being fired from a job.. Let me explain. Back when it first came out, employers interpreted the law that you couldn't let a guy fly for you until all his paperwork came back OK. That process took 30 days or more (previous employers had 30 days to respond). I worked for a dirtbag 135 outfit and wanted to leave. So I interviewed with another 135 outfit that had multiple bases. The interview went well, but they offered me a job at a base I didn't want to be based at (required a relocation). So I turned the job offer down. Unbeknownst to me, they sent the PRIA paperwork to my current employer so that they could get the 30 day ball rolling. I show up to work the following day and was fired by the chief pilot (who knew I had the interview - because I asked for, and got, a recommendation) because the paperwork came across the owner of the company's desk.

That's how seemingly innocuous laws screw real people. In retrospect losing that job was the best thing that ever happened to me, but it still cost me in excess of $25K. I quit AOPA back when they used to recommend voting for John McCain for Senate. It just so happened that I lived in Arizona at the time. He really is a sad choice for Republicans. Look at some of the other legislation that he has sponsored. McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman. He was the one who killed the original Boeing Tanker deal. He is no friend to aviation.

Obama on the other hand might be even worse. If Al Gore gets installed as the secretary of the interior or head the EPA, we will probably all be charged with war crimes or crimes against the planet.

Me personally I'm voting for Sarah Palin because she is HOT:nuts: and I hope McCain strokes out or something and she becomes the first female President (that way Hillary would stroke out too)
 
Last edited:

matthewjohn

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Posts
61
Total Time
8500
Ya, but I second the Palin is HOT comment and the republicans get the vote!
 

54fighting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Posts
177
Total Time
8500
I usually don't get too involved in the political debate. But since everyone (not in this thread) seems to just throw around accusations not backed up by facts, I figured I would do some research regarding the Democrats assertion that the reason we are in this situation today is because of the Republicans. Soooo, here it is. I have included links to back up the assertions.

What the Democrats who control Congress have really accomplished the past two years since taking control of the US Congress. Nothing!!

Before the democrats took control 2-years ago this is how the overall economy stood.

Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/27/business/fi-econ27

Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/19/markets/lundberg_gasprices/index.htm

The unemployment rate was 4.6%.
http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp

Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

Consumer confidence plummets.
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm

The cost of regular gasoline soared to $4.11 a gallon;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25665179/

Unemployment is up to 5.7 (actually 5.8% as of today) ;
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses); by the way the Democrats control the powerful Banking Committee and look what they have done to the Mortgage loan business.

In June 2008, the committee chairman, Christopher Dodd, was linked to troubled subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial. Published reports revealed Dodd had received mortgages on favorable terms owing to being a "FOA"--a Friend Of embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo


Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;

1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

Oil from 55 a barrel to 142 a barrel (McCain wants America to drill for more of its own oil, as a bridge and the Republicans proposed in June 08 to the democrats to stop blocking this, the Democrat led congress led by Pelosi, Obama and Hillary responded by going on a week long vacation on 6/27)

America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

I will say I am not happy about how much our deficit has rose during this administration and it needs to be reigned in.

As far as who is better for us, I think we all need to realize that no one from either side really gives a rat's a$$ about our plights.

The Republicans lost their way over the past eight years. I think you will see McCain move more towards the middle during these next 59 days. That was one of the main reasons for selecting Palin, to solidify and get the backing of the base. Without the base he had absolutely zero chance of winning.

So go ahead and spin away on this one.
 
Last edited:

jet2work

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Posts
196
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pretty much right on.

My only hope is that John McCain gets elected and then becomes incapacitated.

OTOH if Obama gets elected, I think that he will be unable to get anything meaningful done and the country will continue down the path that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried started two years ago (see 54Fighting's post above). Obama does not have the experience or the chips to call in to get any significant legislation passed IMHO. An Obama Presidency would in most likelihood preclude the threat of Hillary ever running again (although that girl has some chutzpa). Is anyone on the Supreme Court on a death watch (maybe Ginsberg?). That could be an issue, but at worst we would maintain staus quo.

4 years of impotence in the WH would take the wind out of many liberals' sails. Especially since they have built Obama up as their Messiah (SPOILER ALERT -think back to when you found out Santa Clause wasn't real). Maybe then they will see that Gov't cannot do anything for you, you must do it for yourself. TANSTAAFL
 
Last edited:

AeroBoy

Cereal Killer
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
300
Total Time
'Nuf
54, hate to burst your bubble, but the housing mess was already in play long before the democrats took control (and barely just) of Congress in 2006. The beginnings started when the Bush Administration relaxed the banking rules back in 2003 and Alan Greenspan sat by quietly and just rode the current political winds instead of airing his concerns about subprime lending. We know how the rest of the story played out over the past 5 years.

re: high fuel prices. This has more to do with oil demand from China and India and market speculators than Congress. (Remember how Enron was able to control energy market pricing in California?) I do put some blame on Congressional legislators and presidents over the past 30 years for failing to form a coherent energy policy. We're still very much in need of one, BTW. And, no, the secret meetings between Bush/Cheney and the oil companies back in 2001 do not count as forming an energy policy.
 

54fighting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Posts
177
Total Time
8500
54, hate to burst your bubble, but the housing mess was already in play long before the democrats took control (and barely just) of Congress in 2006. The beginnings started when the Bush Administration relaxed the banking rules back in 2003 and Alan Greenspan sat by quietly and just rode the current political winds instead of airing his concerns about subprime lending. We know how the rest of the story played out over the past 5 years.

re: high fuel prices. This has more to do with oil demand from China and India and market speculators than Congress. (Remember how Enron was able to control energy market pricing in California?) I do put some blame on Congressional legislators and presidents over the past 30 years for failing to form a coherent energy policy. We're still very much in need of one, BTW. And, no, the secret meetings between Bush/Cheney and the oil companies back in 2001 do not count as forming an energy policy.


No you are not bursting my bubble. I just pointed out some interesting facts that were backed up. I appreciate your insight and respect your views.

Obama/Biden are trying to run on a change platform. Change for the sake of change is not a platform. The Democrats have controlled both the House and Senate and have had 1.5 years to try and offer something of substance. They have done nothing. You can't have it both ways, trying to tell the public, "it's not our fault, it's all theirs."

Regardless of who is eating up the supply of oil, we have not done a single thing in this country to remove our dependence on foreign oil. Imagine what we could do with the $700 billion dollars that has left our country.

As I noted above, the Republicans somehow lost their way over the past eight years. Listening to McCain last night, I think you are going to see the John McCain of 2000. I think he is going to become more of that moderate Republican we were used to seeing, but he needed to shore up the base at the convention. As evident from some of his suggestions, where there were applause lines, no one on the floor really applauded and you could sense the uncomfortable feeling.
:beer:
 
Last edited:

con-pilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Posts
13,296
Total Time
21,000
With McCain we can probably expect to see some minor cost increases in some areas with a form of user fees, however, compared to the overall budget of operating corporate aircraft I believe it will not be all that significant.

Obama on the other hand is a different story. If, and a big if here, he is allowed by Congress to imposes the high increases of tax rates on companies and corporations we could very well see some drastic cut backs in corporate flight departments.

What needs to be remembered is that the President, no matter who is President, cannot change taxation, up or down, only Congress can do that. The same hold true with user fees, again only Congress has that power.

Personal guess, as long as the economy stays stable we will not see much in the way of change.
 

400A

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2003
Posts
1,760
Total Time
5000
Plain and simple for me. I fly for a wealthy individual. When Oboma jacks all of our taxes through the roof and those of the small business's he owns, I may be in trouble.

NObama No way!
 

NCherches

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Posts
691
Total Time
5000+
If GOD wanted us to vote he would have given us a candidate
 

mushroom

It's pronounced Doo-MAH
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Posts
270
Total Time
>7000
When Oboma jacks all of our taxes through the roof ...

Why do you guys ALWAYS repeat this? Does saying it over and over again make it true?

Do you earn more than about $260,000 a year? If so, congratulations, you're doing well. You're also making more than 95% percent of the people in this country. Those 95% will receive a tax CUT under Obama's plan. Here is but one article explaining it.

In addition, if McCain's ideas were enacted, the U.S. would lose $3.7 trillion in revenue between the years of 2009 and 2018, while Obama's plan means a loss of $2.7 trillion during the same years.

Also, a recent GAO report showed that during the years 1998-2005 about 66% of U.S. corporations paid ZERO income tax for at least one of those years, even when they were showing profits. Is that fair to you, or are you uninterested?

There is so much information out there available about this...just Google it. Why do people keep believing that everyone's taxes will go up under Obama? It isn't true.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily...20080611_220050.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
 
Last edited:

54fighting

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2002
Posts
177
Total Time
8500
And bite the hand that feeds you. What good is a tax break when your company can no longer afford to keep your position? I'm not talking about large billion dollar corporations; I'm talking the small to medium sized business owner. Obama refuses to address what the impact will be on this segment, which happens to be our largest growing segment of business.

It is these tax breaks that allows business to expand, add employees and try to remain competitive, emphasizing the word try. Any increase on corporate taxes is going to come out of us the worker, whether it is reduced benefits or increase in cost of goods purchased or loss of jobs.

Make no mistake, it will be passed on to us, we are not getting anything free.

All Obama is doing is playing a shell game. Then you still have to address all his big government spending programs. Where is that money going to come from?

 

CLR2LAN

Comming soon..real soon.
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
141
Total Time
2600
54 - I definately couldn't have said it better! Great post
 
Top